Showing 1 post in Supreme Court.
Continuity or Change? How the Supreme Court changed the law for lenders under the FHA without changing it at all.
After leaving the public, press, regulators, and lenders lingering for six months, the Supreme Court finally produced its 5-4 opinion in Texas Department of Housing & Community Affairs v. The Inclusive Communities Project, Inc., a blockbuster case in which the Court concluded that the Fair Housing Act permits statistically-based disparate impact claims. The Supreme Court’s opinion is important for two reasons. First, it finally puts the Supreme Court’s seal of approval on FHA disparate impact claims, a theory of liability that has been universally recognized by the federal courts of appeals. Second, it will likely embolden plaintiffs to file more suits using a disparate impact theory, which means lenders should evaluate their current policies and practices, especially discretionary pricing policies, to avoid engaging in practices that could be interpreted as discriminatory. Read More ›
Ask the Blogger
Do you have a topic that you would like discussed in a future blog article? Please let us know. If you have a confidential question regarding a blog article, please feel free to contact the article's author directly, or let us know if you would like for someone to contact you directly.
William T. Repasky practices with the Litigation Department at Frost Brown Todd. He focuses on lending and commercial services; banking litigation and financial institutions.